Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rage Cage

Rage Cage

WP:NFT. Contested prod; no unambiguous hits on google that I could find [1]. Mango juice^talk 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a very local drinking game. Also appears to be WP:NOR. --Porqin 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Porqin's assetion of WP:NOR. Ifnord 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not to defend or glorify binge drinking, but it is my contention that this article is being singled out because of a gray area in wikipedia's rules and intentions. I agree that the scholarly literature of this variation of speed quarters is limited, but perhaps this is not the game's fault, but rather a reflection on the lack of scholarly literature about college drinking games in general. Now, this dearth of literature should not be taken as evidence that the game does not exist, it should be balanced against the fact that scholarly literature tends to overlook "soft" subjects such as drinking games.
To clarify, a quick look at many other drinking games shows a similar lack of citations (Mr. Three, Land Mine, One Fat Hen, Captain Paf, and GreenMonster, among others). However, does this mean that they are not played by the general public? Does it mean that these games do not have an impact on many people's lives? Does it mean that these games do not exist? Of course not. However, if wikipedia maintains its reliance on scholarly materials these postings would need to be deleted as well, which would be counter to the mission of wikipedia, which from what I interpret it to be, is to extend all types of knowledge and information to the world.
I would appreciate any and all responses. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.234.64 (talk • contribs)
- I "singled out" this article because I found it when I deleted an image that was marked for speedy deletion. Other similar articles should also be deleted, but I can't do everything. :) Mango juice^talk 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was a concerted effort back in May to clear these out. Pretty much every one we had was nominated for deletion, and most were deleted. Only a handful, which could be clearly verified as common and widely documented, were kept. Even though external sources may not have been added to the articles, they were referenced in the AFD's for the ones that were kept. They don't seem to exist here. Fan-1967 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is the most legitimate argument against this article. Mangojuice is correct that a Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game. It’s worth noting that the game is often simply called “Speed Quarters” – this is actually a predecessor that already exists in WP and results in numerous Google hits. Many of these hits describe the variant that this article calls “Rage Cage.” Of course, Google is not the final arbiter of notability.
The game is widely played in a specific region. This regional predominance is correctly noted by Porqin. Whether or not this constitutes non-notability is up to the admins. As I live in the region where the game is relevant, I think it is notable. Wikipedia would lose much of its relevance to casual users if national and/or international recognition became a necessary condition for inclusion. WP:N is a critical rule, but I believe it’s too ephemeral and subjective to be the sole factor for elimination here.
Please follow the link to an MLA formatting guide for a defense to the WP:NOR assertion.[2] MLA dictates that “You do not need to give sources for familiar proverbs, well-known quotations or common knowledge. Remember, this is a rhetorical choice, based on audience” (scroll down to the “When a Citation is not Needed” header). I am admittedly new enough to Wikipedia that I don’t know the generally-accepted citation rules, but I presume that the rules that apply to academic papers would also suffice here. In browsing through other well-developed WP articles, it seems that the stardards are perhaps even more lenient than that.
The WP:NFT assertion is poorly informed. It’s understandable those unfamiliar with the topic would attribute their unfamiliarity to WP:NFT. However, the game is widely played, albeit in a regional setting. As with most informal competitions, and nearly all drinking games, its origins are impossible to document, but its proponents would assert that the game has undoubtedly existed for more than a decade.
This article needs cleanup, and contributions from outside of the San Francisco area are necessary. However, I don’t agree that it should be deleted. I do value this discussion, and look forward to your comments. S myrick 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree that WP:N is the only issue. The problem isn't that "Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game." The problem is that Google fails to bring up results that are relevant. The only relevant result I can find is the Stanford "Beerlympics" piece cited in the article. So, it is not "common knowledge" that this is a widespread game, even in a local area. WP:OR does apply, and verifiable citations from reliable sources are needed to establish that this is not just something made up in school. Fan-1967 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Fan-1967 You are correct that reliable sources are needed to establish that this is "not just something made up in school." The WP:NFT page that you linked to includes the following:
    The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia:
    
    School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia.
    
    For example, Catherine Gewertz has written an article, published in Education Week in 2001, about the school craze of freak dancing, which makes freak dancing a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It's verifiable, the research has already been done (and peer reviewed and fact checked) outside of Wikipedia, and the world at large already knows about the craze from the Education Week article.
    
    What you should do:
    
    Only succumb to the temptation to write Wikipedia articles about what was made up in school one day if you can and do cite sources. Reliable sources do not include people writing in web logs or posting pseudonymously on discussion forums.
  This standard indicates that only a single fact-checked, published source is necessary for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia - even if the subject was just something made up in school (which this subject is not). The Rage Cage article links to such a source (The Stanford Daily). So, I'm going to reframe the WP:NFT debate from "Is this something made up in school at some point?" to "Is the Stanford Daily a legitimate publication with acceptable fact-checking procedures?" If not, you're establishing a "legitimacy line" somewhere between the Stanford Daily and Education Week, and I will respectfully ask that you elucidate that line. But, as per the WP:NFT policy, that's the issue at hand. S myrick 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I wouldn't say there's a "legitimacy line" but clearly Stanford-related culture is going to receive a lot more attention in the Stanford Daily than it would in a clearly independent source like, say, the LA Times. That's not to say that the Stanford Daily article would mean nothing (although I couldn't load it), but it doesn't rise to the level of the freak dancing example; Education Week is a national magazine on education. What I'd look for is independence. I don't believe anyone could insert a mention of their favorite home-made drinking game into the New York Times, but I'm not sure if I believe that about a college newspaper... if that is the one and only source, I'm not inclined to trust it. Mango juice^talk 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on the single available source, it seems that this article meets the standards for Stanfordpedia or WikiStanford or whatever. I don't see anything beyond that. Fan-1967 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NFT --MECU≈talk 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure: this is my first editation, having created a username for the express purpose of commenting here. I can assure skeptics that I live across the country from Stanford, am not familiar with this article's author, and therefore am not a "sockpuppet." Regarding independent sources: I have seen "rage cage" referenced in print newspapers in my area. This presents a quandary, since though I am familiar with the game and have seen it referenced in sources independent from the Stanford Daily, these articles are not online and therefore are not available for quotation to support this site. I am therefore forced to reject this article per WP:NOR. Topics such as drinking games fall into a difficult middle ground-- though the subjects and terms themselves are often well-known across wide varieties of groups, they are only rarely referenced in print, and when referenced are published in papers or magazines which are localized by area (such as college campuses, which in many cases would fall prey to the independence requirement) or topic (such as city arts and entertainment papers, which are often not posted online). Such bias therefore precludes them from wiki inclusion, even if their widely acknowledged existence falls within the "spirit" of wikipedia. If it comes to a choice of spirit vs. rules, I vote spirit. I would keep this article based on my own experience and intiution that this topic deserves inclusion under the spirit of wikipedia, despite its arguable violation of one of its rules.Robkit 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the middle ground is difficult. But I have no problem excluding it in order to stick to the important principles. We have to abandon that middle ground to do a good job covering drinking games, (or, more importantly internet memes) but I think that signals an area we shouldn't be covering, rather than a reason to stretch the rules. Mango juice^talk 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN localised drinking game. -- GWO
Redirect this non-notable drinking game to the entirely unrelated Cage Rage. MLA 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely seems like a local creation. If we allowed every random drinking game variation it would never end. --64.139.10.218 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be a number of users visiting this discussion, noticing that the game is popular in a local area, and dismissing it on that basis. I (perhaps naively) hope that those who comment have read the article carefully. However, I urge the “Delete” proponents to follow the first two points of AfD/Wikiettiquette:

The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article.

I know that no seasoned Wikipedia veteran wants to hear rules from a self-admitted newcomer. But please, make a comment if it is a contribution to the discussion, not just a one-line restatement of that which has already been discussed. I trust that the closing admin will be considering ideas, not head counts.

That said, let me assert that “local” does not mean “non-notable.” This is especially true for articles that document culture, or cultural activities. In fact, the ability to document local culture is a particular strength of Wikipedia – Britannica can only document such things after they have been homogenized through widespread proliferation, which is of dubious value. I’ll let someone else claim that a drinking game can not constitute culture or a cultural activity – to which I will have to spend all day writing a 2000-word defense of the (correct) broad definition of culture. In other words, please don’t :) S myrick 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be a bigger discussion It seems like there’s an emerging theme among the “delete” proponents that drinking games don’t belong on Wikipedia at all – or perhaps that only the very most common warrant inclusion. The latter would be a difficult policy, as drinking games (even the most common) are non-centralized and subject to huge regional variation. To include drinking games at all is to include a diverse array of customs and variations.

Should drinking games be included at all? Though that is a worthwhile discussion to have, it’s a discussion that should take place in a community forum, or Village Pump, rather than on this AfD page. That discussion would hinge largely on interpretations of Wikipedia rules, as both sides have acknowledged that we are in a “gray area” or “middle ground.”

Until that discussion takes place, however, I believe that we should revert to Wikipedia precedent. As it currently stands, drinking games are a series in English Wikipedia, and separate entries exist for many dozens – perhaps hundreds – of games. I realize that the “delete” proponents would make the same deletion arguments for many those entries. However, that’s a discussion that should take place on a larger scale. Citing precedent, and for the sake of consistency and coherent policy, the Rage Cage entry should stand until a larger policy discussion can occur. S myrick 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You write very well, and I certainly hope you decide to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but let's face it, you're trying to argue that a drinking game at one college should be documented as a notable cultural activity. Do you have any idea how many universities there are? Guess what. They all have students who drink, and invent new ways to do it, and terms for how they do it. This isn't about drinking games in general; it's about this one. Fan-1967 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I hope you'll stay and work on the articles we really need. But since you're interested in precedent, I dug around a little bit and found many drinking game deletion precedents. See this debate's talk page for it. Mango juice^talk 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Precedent I appreciate the kind words - I've gained a lot of respect for Wikipedia's processes in this discussion. Of course, with those processes in mind I still believe that this article is valid. I've replied to Mangojuice's list of precedents on this debate's talk page with my own. Feel free to click over - but the short version is that there was a concerted effort in May 2006 to delete a number of drinking games (stemming from this AfD). 37 games were individually listed for deletion, of which 32 were kept, 4 were deleted, and 1 was redirected. I believe this is a strong - and recent - precedent. Many of the games that were kept were, I would contend, less notable than Rage Cage. Of course, you're welcome to go through and relist all of them, but that would probably violate WP:POINT :) S myrick 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Name one that's less notable than Rage Cage. Let's be real. Your game is confined to one campus. The only way to be less notable than that is to not exist at all. Fan-1967 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]